AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. SATYAGOPAL ROY
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-136
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
Decided on
March 15,2002
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Appellant
VERSUS
SATYAGOPAL ROY
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF MADRAS VS. REV BROTHER JOSEPH [REFERRED]SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DAVANGERE VS. P VEERABHADARAPPA [REFERRED]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. GURCHARAN SINGH [REFERRED]
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MALAPRABHA DAM PROJECT SAUNDATTI VS. MADIVALAPPA BASALINGAPPA MELAVANKI [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
CHUNNI LAL VS. ONGC LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2016-9-91] [REFERRED TO]NAVNATH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-225] [REFERRED TO]
BIDYA SATNAMI VS. ZONE OFFICER L A [LAWS(ORI)-2005-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
K S E B VS. KUTTUKKAN UMMERKUTTY [LAWS(KER)-2009-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DEORAM FAKIRA PALMAHALE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-9-118] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. PUNJABRAO SHRAWAN KADWE (DEAD) [LAWS(BOM)-2023-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER VS. KUMARAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2019-6-102] [REFERRED TO]
NELATUR SAMPOORNAMMA VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, L.A. [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
K. SUBBARAYUDU AND OTHERS VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION) [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-80] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. LIVISHA [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-143] [REFERRED TO]
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL DIST VS. M. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2010-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. HIMADRI SAHU [LAWS(ORI)-2007-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. GOUTAM DHARUA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-5-41] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED VS. A.P. MANOHARACHAR [LAWS(KAR)-2014-8-141] [REFERRED TO]
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED VS. G.T. RAMAREDDY [LAWS(KAR)-2014-8-144] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KALA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2012-10-98] [RELIED ON ]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. C P SIVASANKARA MENON [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-113] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR, DEHRADUN [LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-86] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. K.P.GEEVARGHESE, S/O.PAULOSE [LAWS(KER)-2012-10-435] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNI DEVI VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2005-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. GIRIDHARI NAYAK [LAWS(ORI)-2006-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. K RADHAKRISHNAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-386] [REFERRED TO]
DY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-99] [REFERRED TO]
L. A. ZONE OFFICER, TALCHER VS. KULAMANI SAHU [LAWS(ORI)-2005-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER VS. N. JANAKI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-782] [REFERRED TO]
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. DODDAKKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-8-153] [REFERRED TO]
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. VS. THIMMASHETTY [LAWS(KAR)-2014-8-239] [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VS. BAYYA JANAKI [LAWS(APH)-2008-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL SARKAR VS. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2016-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
GULAM NABI GULAM GAWAS DEAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-7-147] [REFERRED TO]
BABU, AGED 48, S/O. SADASIVAN, BABU SADANAM, URUKUNNU P.O., THENMALA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK VS. POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED, VILAGOM PURAYIDOM, DOCTORS LANE, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PIN [LAWS(KER)-2016-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. PUNDIK GOVIND NARULKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2011-6-169] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHU RAM VS. THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (NATHPA JHAKRI) AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2013-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
A.LAXMAN S/O JALPATH AND ANOTHER VS. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADILABAD [LAWS(APH)-2016-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NATESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2002-7-186] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. YESODHARAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Appellant-Airports Authority of India has challenged the judgment and order dated 27-7-2000 passed by the High Court of Guwahati at Agartala in First Appeal No. 68 of 1995, whereby the Court determined compensation for cutting of trees by applying the multiplier of 18 years'yield.
(3.)It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is against the law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and another (1995) 2 Suppl. SCC 637 wherein this Court has held that under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation.
(2.)Appellant-Airports Authority of India has challenged the judgment and order dated 27-7-2000 passed by the High Court of Guwahati at Agartala in First Appeal No. 68 of 1995, whereby the Court determined compensation for cutting of trees by applying the multiplier of 18 years'yield.
(3.)It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is against the law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and another (1995) 2 Suppl. SCC 637 wherein this Court has held that under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years when the market value is determined on the basis of the yield from the trees or plantation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.